On the news with spectacular video footage of a dashcam..
An ATR72 of Transasia has crashed in a river near Taipeh!
The second loss of such a frame in nearly two years...
Its getting a habit
CXB
ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Moderator: Latest news team
-
cathay belgium
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 00:17
- Location: Lommel-Belgium
- Contact:
ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Hi,
On the news with spectacular video footage of a dashcam..
An ATR72 of Transasia has crashed in a river near Taipeh!
The second loss of such a frame in nearly two years...
Its getting a habit
CXB
On the news with spectacular video footage of a dashcam..
An ATR72 of Transasia has crashed in a river near Taipeh!
The second loss of such a frame in nearly two years...
Its getting a habit
CXB
New types flown 2024 : DO228, A338 , PC6
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Damn...
Stij
Stij
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Astonishing.
Now we see how fast this is happening. Just some seconds.
At an airport an ATR may look small next to larger airplanes.
But when this object comes to your direction, it looks huge.
Sad for the fatalities, injured and families.
If you see the small clip, it seems almost unbelievable that 28 peoples came out alive.
Now we see how fast this is happening. Just some seconds.
At an airport an ATR may look small next to larger airplanes.
But when this object comes to your direction, it looks huge.
Sad for the fatalities, injured and families.
If you see the small clip, it seems almost unbelievable that 28 peoples came out alive.
-
Desert Rat
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Left wing collides with the bus roof... 
-
Wohowbagger
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 13 Feb 2011, 21:56
- Location: 13,8nm from BRU
- Contact:
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
It's on the AV Herald:
http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3&opt=0
The best dashcam footage I think is this one.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e36_1423052703
http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3&opt=0
The best dashcam footage I think is this one.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e36_1423052703
Last edited by Wohowbagger on 06 Feb 2015, 14:17, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Shocking footage...
Looks like it stalled...
My sympathies to all victims and families...
Looks like it stalled...
My sympathies to all victims and families...
Last edited by RTM on 04 Feb 2015, 19:44, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/2364 ... eem__.html
Appearantly an engine flameout was reported. Since that call, it took 4 minutes to impact...
The video fragments I've seen so far were of too low resolution to make out if either of the engines were shut off. In the above link, there is a frozen frame shot that suggests the LH prop is feathered, though still turning.
So, what was wrong with the other engine? The ATR was not fully loaded with "only" 58 on board, so it should have been able to maintain altitude, and return to the airport safely... Especially since the A/C, and probably the engines as well were still fresh with only 10 months on the clock...
Appearantly an engine flameout was reported. Since that call, it took 4 minutes to impact...
The video fragments I've seen so far were of too low resolution to make out if either of the engines were shut off. In the above link, there is a frozen frame shot that suggests the LH prop is feathered, though still turning.
So, what was wrong with the other engine? The ATR was not fully loaded with "only" 58 on board, so it should have been able to maintain altitude, and return to the airport safely... Especially since the A/C, and probably the engines as well were still fresh with only 10 months on the clock...
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Sorry, the frozen frame image was on the Telegraaf main page... This is it:
-
FlightMate
- Posts: 390
- Joined: 15 Mar 2007, 14:39
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Looks like everything was fine until a bloody taxi driver went in the way.
Seriously though, it looks like the left wing stalled before the right. Due to left engine failure? (No more prop wash?)
Seriously though, it looks like the left wing stalled before the right. Due to left engine failure? (No more prop wash?)
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
To me this sounds like an engine failed on Take-Off with the aircraft not having accelerated to V2 safety speed. As a consequence the ATR was not controllable due to VMC. On these aircraft an engine failure on Tafe-Off can be quite demanding.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
The apparent wing drop can be as a result of many factors:
-commanded for obstacle clearance attempt
-wing drop by stall / VMCA roll, either for obstacle clearance or bad speed management after engine failure
-overcompensation on one of the engines as one of the engines goes into feathering
This being said, it looks like a steep drop from the pass to the river bed.
I'm not sure that a flat landing would have been a better outcome, this isn't exactly a Hudson landing where the aircraft was glided comfortably into a huge river. And it's not exactly a A320 with low wing, cargo compartment below and engines to absorb the shock of the landing.
If it had landed flat, the fuselage would have absorbed most of the impact as opposed to the left wing here which probably absorbed most of the impact. This would have resulted in the fuselage breaking up in pieces with significantly more impact forces and potential debris on the passengers.
I wonder if the survivors don't have their lives to thank to that wing drop.
That ATR looks awfully big from that perspective. I would get nightmares if I had seen it happen live.
-commanded for obstacle clearance attempt
-wing drop by stall / VMCA roll, either for obstacle clearance or bad speed management after engine failure
-overcompensation on one of the engines as one of the engines goes into feathering
This being said, it looks like a steep drop from the pass to the river bed.
I'm not sure that a flat landing would have been a better outcome, this isn't exactly a Hudson landing where the aircraft was glided comfortably into a huge river. And it's not exactly a A320 with low wing, cargo compartment below and engines to absorb the shock of the landing.
If it had landed flat, the fuselage would have absorbed most of the impact as opposed to the left wing here which probably absorbed most of the impact. This would have resulted in the fuselage breaking up in pieces with significantly more impact forces and potential debris on the passengers.
I wonder if the survivors don't have their lives to thank to that wing drop.
That ATR looks awfully big from that perspective. I would get nightmares if I had seen it happen live.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
A South African commercial pilot with experience on twin engine aircraft has posted a comment on Avcom, a South African aviation forum. It's posted in the restricted area there, so I post the full text:
copy/paste:
"...I fly a twin-engined airliner. I have not flown an ATR or the Q400, both of which have full FADEC motors, but I have flown the DH8-300 in airline ops. All of these aircraft are certified to fly on one engine, in fact, they are certified to get airborne on one if the other (most critical) fails at V1. All airline training and operations assume that the aircraft will perform as advertised and that with good stick and throttle skills and sharp emergency procedures and CRM, you will climb away and live to fight another day. I have done this for 10 000 odd hours, and will never consider an off airport landing as long as we are still flying. After getting airborne in an airliner, the deck angle is such that you almost never see the ground in front of you, so the whole idea about planning for places to ditch is completely foreign to me. If, by some weird refueling error or bird strike, I happen to lose both engines, I have one of two plans in the CRJ. Anything above 2000' AGL in CPT or JNB, I can turn back for the other runway. Anything below that (or at places with single runways and up to 3000' (above 3000' I can turn back to same runway reciprocal)), I will look over the nose (which now points down for a change) and aim for anything open.
In other words, although there might be circumstances in which I will try an off airport landing, they are very specific and the spot I pick will be picked in the moment. These circumstances do not include a single engine failure.
Although the buildings loom large in the video, they are mostly less than 15 stories, so less than 200' high and I don't think the pilots even saw them with the nose so high. When I scoff at talk of avoiding buildings and planning to land on a highway or in a river, I don't do so because I want to denigrate the crew, but because that is what I know in my own heart and what other airline pilots think as well. We do things differently from recreational pilots because we have the opportunity to actually practice ("real") emergencies in the simulator. In April I will go for my 17th simulator recurrent in a CRJ200. With the initial, that adds up to over 200 hours in a level D simulator. Engine failures (even thrust reverser uncommanded deployment) is such old hat that we get marked on it without getting to practice it beforehand.
When I talk about ham-handed handling, it is also with understanding that all of us can let the aircraft get away from us and getting it back with little altitude available can be impossible. It does not change the fact that airline pilots are held to higher standards. We ask for more money because of it, but we have to produce the goods when required or our performance (or lack of it) will be called out by our peers. This attitude makes us all safer.
The normal climb schedule for the ATR72-600 (that is the newest model with full FADEC engines) calls for acceleration at a certain altitude (normally 400', but that can change with obstacle clearance limitations). You will get airborne at a speed somewhere between Vr and V2 and climb at V2 plus 10 or so kts until the accell altitude, where the power levers are pulled out of the T/o detent into the Climb detent. At this moment, you lose auto uptrim (more power from remaining engine if the other fails) and autofeather. It means that if an engine fails after this selection of the power levers (they apparently call them Power Management Selectors (PMS)), the crew are responsible to select more power (max power/max continuous power) and they have to manually feather the dead engine. Failing to do either or both will have significant consequences. The windmilling prop will have tremendous drag, because the CSU will immediately go full fine pitch to hold the RPM constant. Climb power would be somewhat less than full power on the live engine and with the nose high because of the climb, there will have to be an immediate and positive pitch forward to keep the speed from dropping to the wrong side of the drag curve or (God forbid) below Vmca or Vs.
Looking at the video, it seems as if flap is travelling from 0 to 15 in the last few seconds of the video. It also looks as if the left prop is in the process of being feathered. I cannot say what happened in that cockpit, but I do not think they had control of that aircraft from a few seconds after the engine failed. The fact that someone called "mayday", completely out of the normal sequence of events, I think supports my theory.
I have heard a few unsubstantiated rumours:
1. There were three pilots on board (Captain (maybe under training) 4000 odd hours; FO 6000 odd hours; someone on the jumpseat (maybe check/training captain) 14000 odd hours)
2. The particular aircraft had a history of engine problems with a very recent engine change.
3. The ATR has significant handling vices due to supercritical wing and stabilizer sections and small control surfaces.
(end of copy/paste)
Source:
http://www.avcom.co.za
and
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic ... 0#p1555178
copy/paste:
"...I fly a twin-engined airliner. I have not flown an ATR or the Q400, both of which have full FADEC motors, but I have flown the DH8-300 in airline ops. All of these aircraft are certified to fly on one engine, in fact, they are certified to get airborne on one if the other (most critical) fails at V1. All airline training and operations assume that the aircraft will perform as advertised and that with good stick and throttle skills and sharp emergency procedures and CRM, you will climb away and live to fight another day. I have done this for 10 000 odd hours, and will never consider an off airport landing as long as we are still flying. After getting airborne in an airliner, the deck angle is such that you almost never see the ground in front of you, so the whole idea about planning for places to ditch is completely foreign to me. If, by some weird refueling error or bird strike, I happen to lose both engines, I have one of two plans in the CRJ. Anything above 2000' AGL in CPT or JNB, I can turn back for the other runway. Anything below that (or at places with single runways and up to 3000' (above 3000' I can turn back to same runway reciprocal)), I will look over the nose (which now points down for a change) and aim for anything open.
In other words, although there might be circumstances in which I will try an off airport landing, they are very specific and the spot I pick will be picked in the moment. These circumstances do not include a single engine failure.
Although the buildings loom large in the video, they are mostly less than 15 stories, so less than 200' high and I don't think the pilots even saw them with the nose so high. When I scoff at talk of avoiding buildings and planning to land on a highway or in a river, I don't do so because I want to denigrate the crew, but because that is what I know in my own heart and what other airline pilots think as well. We do things differently from recreational pilots because we have the opportunity to actually practice ("real") emergencies in the simulator. In April I will go for my 17th simulator recurrent in a CRJ200. With the initial, that adds up to over 200 hours in a level D simulator. Engine failures (even thrust reverser uncommanded deployment) is such old hat that we get marked on it without getting to practice it beforehand.
When I talk about ham-handed handling, it is also with understanding that all of us can let the aircraft get away from us and getting it back with little altitude available can be impossible. It does not change the fact that airline pilots are held to higher standards. We ask for more money because of it, but we have to produce the goods when required or our performance (or lack of it) will be called out by our peers. This attitude makes us all safer.
The normal climb schedule for the ATR72-600 (that is the newest model with full FADEC engines) calls for acceleration at a certain altitude (normally 400', but that can change with obstacle clearance limitations). You will get airborne at a speed somewhere between Vr and V2 and climb at V2 plus 10 or so kts until the accell altitude, where the power levers are pulled out of the T/o detent into the Climb detent. At this moment, you lose auto uptrim (more power from remaining engine if the other fails) and autofeather. It means that if an engine fails after this selection of the power levers (they apparently call them Power Management Selectors (PMS)), the crew are responsible to select more power (max power/max continuous power) and they have to manually feather the dead engine. Failing to do either or both will have significant consequences. The windmilling prop will have tremendous drag, because the CSU will immediately go full fine pitch to hold the RPM constant. Climb power would be somewhat less than full power on the live engine and with the nose high because of the climb, there will have to be an immediate and positive pitch forward to keep the speed from dropping to the wrong side of the drag curve or (God forbid) below Vmca or Vs.
Looking at the video, it seems as if flap is travelling from 0 to 15 in the last few seconds of the video. It also looks as if the left prop is in the process of being feathered. I cannot say what happened in that cockpit, but I do not think they had control of that aircraft from a few seconds after the engine failed. The fact that someone called "mayday", completely out of the normal sequence of events, I think supports my theory.
I have heard a few unsubstantiated rumours:
1. There were three pilots on board (Captain (maybe under training) 4000 odd hours; FO 6000 odd hours; someone on the jumpseat (maybe check/training captain) 14000 odd hours)
2. The particular aircraft had a history of engine problems with a very recent engine change.
3. The ATR has significant handling vices due to supercritical wing and stabilizer sections and small control surfaces.
(end of copy/paste)
Source:
http://www.avcom.co.za
and
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic ... 0#p1555178
-
Boeing767copilot
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 13 May 2004, 00:00
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Taiwan orders ATR 72s grounded, inspected following TransAsia crash
Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) has ordered Taiwanese airlines TransAsia Airways and Uni Air to ground their ATR 72s and conduct engine inspections on the turboprops following the Feb. 4 crash of a TransAsia ATR 72-600 in Taipei. TransAsia has four ATR 72-600s remaining in its fleet as well as six ATR 72-500s.
Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) has ordered Taiwanese airlines TransAsia Airways and Uni Air to ground their ATR 72s and conduct engine inspections on the turboprops following the Feb. 4 crash of a TransAsia ATR 72-600 in Taipei. TransAsia has four ATR 72-600s remaining in its fleet as well as six ATR 72-500s.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
ATR statement on TransAsia’s flight GE235
ATR regrets to confirm that an ATR 72-600 operated by Taiwan’s TransAsia Airways was involved in an accident today at around 10.45 am (local time) near Taipei Songshan airport (Taiwan). The flight GE235 was operating between Taipei and Kinmen with 58 people on board.
The aircraft, registered under B-22816, was MSN (Manufacturing Serial Number) 1141.
At this time, the circumstances of the accident are still under investigation.
The Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan will lead the investigation and will be the official source of information. According to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) regulations, ATR will advise the French Bureau d’Enquêtes et Analyses (BEA), safety investigation authority representing the State of the aircraft manufacturer.
ATR express its deepest sympathy to the families, friends and to those affected by the accident.
Wednesday 04 February 2015
ATR regrets to confirm that an ATR 72-600 operated by Taiwan’s TransAsia Airways was involved in an accident today at around 10.45 am (local time) near Taipei Songshan airport (Taiwan). The flight GE235 was operating between Taipei and Kinmen with 58 people on board.
The aircraft, registered under B-22816, was MSN (Manufacturing Serial Number) 1141.
At this time, the circumstances of the accident are still under investigation.
The Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan will lead the investigation and will be the official source of information. According to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) regulations, ATR will advise the French Bureau d’Enquêtes et Analyses (BEA), safety investigation authority representing the State of the aircraft manufacturer.
ATR express its deepest sympathy to the families, friends and to those affected by the accident.
Wednesday 04 February 2015
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
-
Wohowbagger
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 13 Feb 2011, 21:56
- Location: 13,8nm from BRU
- Contact:
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
It seems they lost power in engine #2, they shut engine #1 down manually. And then they questioned why #1 stalled, moments later #2 auto feathered.
Seems a bit like the Kegworth air disaster. In short: after a problem with #1 they shut #2 down, because they thought the AC, where smoke was coming from, was only supplied via the right hand engine. Which in previous B737 models was the case.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
Seems a bit like the Kegworth air disaster. In short: after a problem with #1 they shut #2 down, because they thought the AC, where smoke was coming from, was only supplied via the right hand engine. Which in previous B737 models was the case.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
Unbelievable. Isn't it about time that pilots can actually see the engines (via small camera system), so they don't have to 'guess' anymore which engine has problems...
-
JAF737
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
I hope you were not serious...Boavida wrote:Unbelievable. Isn't it about time that pilots can actually see the engines (via small camera system), so they don't have to 'guess' anymore which engine has problems...
Re: ATR crash Transasia in Taiwan (again)
I admit I don't know much about airplanes 
But recently I've seen a report about the Kegworth air disaster. As mentioned before, they shut down the wrong engine (instead of the one on fire). This clearly wouldn't have happened if they could see which engine was on fire, no? Please enlighten me.
But recently I've seen a report about the Kegworth air disaster. As mentioned before, they shut down the wrong engine (instead of the one on fire). This clearly wouldn't have happened if they could see which engine was on fire, no? Please enlighten me.